Countering the Rancid Current, 3/29/21

More “movement” dishonesty?  In all cases, emphasis added.

First, before we get to the main points of this post, read this.  Haven’t I always told you that Asians are bizarre aliens, virtually akin to a different species?

Comment:

HT 

Races are different in more ways than just IQ. Asians are like little calculators but do not exhibit the independence or creativity to develop what whites have done in terms of discovery and inventions. Negros? Not sure what they have to offer.

Now to the main events:

Laugh at this:

Vagrant RightistMarch 28, 2021 at 4:20 am

I do have some questions and concerns about this and other recent changes. Rather than writing everything I could, I’ll stick to one question and ask, why is this is necessary?

The last fundraiser was a success as you’ve said and asking for donations did in fact work. You’ve made a case that nationalism, and nationalist publications needed to be supported and people listened.

Reply

Greg JohnsonMarch 28, 2021 at 5:28 am

This is necessary to raise money, to thank donors for their support, and to build donor loyalty and engagement

If Johnson’s answer had simply ended after the word “money,” it would have been both more succinct and more accurate.

It’s ALL about money with these guys. Der Movement, Inc., is a money making enterprise for folks who can’t or won’t do anything else.

Laugh at this. The “old boys network” takes care of its own (and perhaps other networks are involved as well), and we see praise of the execrable Johnson (as well as support for MacDonald’s discredited HBD Nordicism). Rather than waste time refuting this essay point-by point, let’s concentrate on the most egregious sin of omission:

Therefore, to advocate or accept a population that is part non-White, in whatever proportion, is to advocate or accept that the population that ultimately results from their blending will be that proportion non-White. To accept a population that is 5% non-White is to accept the White race becoming 5% non-White, and accepting a 10% non-White population would mean the White race would become 10% non-White, a 5% or 10% shift away from being us and toward being them. Such a genetic shift is racially destructive and hence anti-White. The European-American population’s current genetic average is 98.6% European, or 1.4% non-European, with 94% of European-Americans having no genetically measurable non-European ancestry. 

After a 5% mixture with non-Caucasians, we would not really have a White race in the European sense of the term. So if we don’t want our race to become 5%, 10% or more non-European then we must not allow our country to be 5%, 10%, or more non-European. That is why Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech, made when Britain was still less than 5% non-White, had such an emotional impact.

I have already pointed out in a previous post that McCulloch’s use of, and understanding of, genetic data (never a strong point with him), is inherently flawed, and his use of numbers of dubious origin, taking seriously to-the-decimal point percentages derived from flawed methodologies, is laughable. But that’s a minor point for my purposes. The main point is contrasting McCulloch’s praise for Johnson’s “work” with McCulloch’s insistence on a 100% White ethnostate. Unfortunately, his bosom buddy Johnson has written expressing a somewhat different opinion.

But one will not be able to create a consensus supporting such policies until one announces a demographic target number somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%. In 1965, before America abandoned immigration policies that were committed to maintaining a white supermajority, the US was about 90% white. Now the white population is about 60%, and every year those numbers get worse for white Americans.

As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, I would leave that completely open. I would, however, make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups...

...I distinguish three senses of homogeneity:

Strict homogeneity — meaning there are no racial and cultural outsiders at all

De facto homogeneity — meaning that outsiders are present, but citizens are not forced to deal with them, so if one wants, one can live as if one inhabits a strictly homogeneous society

Normative homogeneity — meaning that if outsiders are present, they accept and live by the norms of the society.

Most white societies will reject strict homogeneity. European colonial societies usually have aboriginal relict populations. Others have descendants of slaves and indentured servants. Still others have long-established minority groups like Swedes in Finland. Strict homogeneity just seems unfair to these groups. Beyond that, most white societies are fine with small numbers of foreign residents, foreign students, foreign tourists, and assimilable immigrants.

However, the presence of such people is no threat to a society if it is committed to normative and de facto forms of homogeneity. A 90% Swedish Sweden can still be 100% normatively Swedish. A 90% Swedish Sweden can also allow Swedes complete freedom of association and disassociation, so that nobody is forced to deal with outsiders if he prefers to remain separate. Thus people in a 90% White Nationalist society can, if they so choose, live as if it is a 100% White Nationalist society, which should satisfy most people.

If McCulloch was less dishonest (or, at best, incompetent rather than dishonest), he’d admit that his hero Johnson has advocated for exactly the sort of multiracial “ethnostate” that McCulloch views as leading to:

...to advocate or accept a population that is part non-White, in whatever proportion, is to advocate or accept that the population that ultimately results from their blending will be that proportion non-White. To accept a population that is 5% non-White is to accept the White race becoming 5% non-White, and accepting a 10% non-White population would mean the White race would become 10% non-White, a 5% or 10% shift away from being us and toward being them.

Granted, there will be a Part II to McCulloch’s “contribution,” but I am less than sanguine that it will address such an existential difference between his position and Johnson’s. That difference should have been addressed right here, in Part I.

Do all you guys in the rank-and-file still have confidence in your fundamentally dishonest “movement” “leadership?”

Apologists for the Quota Queens will aver that McCulloch is simply reviewing a single work of Johnson’s and, hence, does not have to delve into these other matters. That is absurd. The essay starts with praise for Johnson’s entire history as an “activist” and his entire corpus of work, and McCulloch’s essay is not shy in bringing in other material, such as MacDonald’s bizarre theories or laughable genetic data derived from flawed 23andMe-style methodologies. No, there is no excuse.  If a major point of McCulloch’s argument is the importance of a 100% White ethnostate, then it seems absolutely essential to mention that the person he is praising advocates for a 90% ethnostate in which one in every ten people will be a racial alien. 

Another apologia would be that McCulloch is simply unaware of Johnson’s "ninety percent" essay, which I suppose is the “incompetent ignorance instead of mendacious dishonesty” defense. One would think that a writer focused on the work of an individual would be, and should be, aware of that individual advocating for the very thing the writer himself so adamantly opposes. It doesn’t boost confidence in the competence and judgment of the writer if they are so completely ignorant of the subject matter on which they write. Indeed, knowledge of Johnson’s advocacy for a Hart-like multiracial “White separatist state” (sic) would help clear up McCulloch’s confusion here:

One wonders why Johnson, who is talking about race, as made clear by the reference to “white” in the last sentence, uses the euphemism multiculturalism instead of multiracialism. This is not typical of his work. As these essays came from lectures, I suspect he considered the term more appropriate for his Norwegian, Swedish and Lithuanian audiences, where the racial threat is largely from non-European Caucasian (NEC) Islamic invaders whose cultural differences pose a very serious additional problem to their racial problem, but a footnote explaining this would have been helpful, as the difference between the two terms is important.

Yes, perhaps the “footnote” could inform us all that if a person advocates for a multiracial state then of course multiculturalism, rather than multiracialism, will be cited as the problem.

Of course, it is always possible that, consistent with his usual behavior, in the not too distant future, Johnson will write a new article, this time advocating for an absolutely pure, 100% White ethnostate, with the previous “ninety percent white nationalism” essay unacknowledged – and if any uncouth commentator has the temerity to bring up the inconsistency, then, why, they’ll simply be labeled “insane” and “paranoid" and be “banned.”  Problem solved!

I leave it up to the readers to decide for themselves if individuals such as Johnson and McCulloch have the judgment, trustworthiness, character, and competence to serve in any sort of leadership role in a "movement" dedicated to White survival.